Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 2 minor 2 cited by

Dark Energy and the Symbiosis Between Micro-physics and Cosmology (Naturally)

T0 review · 3 major / 2 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a technically natural relaxation mechanism involving a light dilaton field predicts a dark energy density of order (M_EW^2/M_p)^4, in the observed ballpark.

desk verdict Solid, readable review of EFT and naturalness; the final dark-energy estimate has a scaling slip and should not be quoted as a prediction. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.00688 v1 pith:R77L5KU2 submitted 2025-08-31 hep-th astro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph

C.P. Burgess This is my paper
classification hep-thastro-ph.COgr-qchep-ph
keywords darkenergycosmologicalconstantproblemtechnicalnaturalnesseffectivefieldtheorydilatonsupersymmetryextradimensionsrelaxationmechanism
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This lecture-based paper argues that the dark energy puzzle can be attacked from microphysics: instead of accepting vacuum energy as a constant, it should be explained by a light dilaton field that is technically natural because of an approximate scale symmetry in a supersymmetric dark sector. The central estimate is that the minimum of the effective potential lands at V_min ~ M_p^4 U / tau^4, which, for the same tau that sets the electroweak hierarchy, is (M_EW^2/M_p)^4 ~ (0.1 eV)^4, the observed dark energy density. The author presents this as a promising but unfinished program, with the relaxation mechanism resting on order-unity coefficients and on a large tau ~ 10^28 fixed by the electroweak hierarchy. The lectures also make the methodological case that effective field theory and technical naturalness are the right filters for selecting cosmological models.

What carries the argument

The axio-dilaton: a complex scalar T = 1/2(tau + i a) pairing the dilaton (which shifts under approximate scale invariance, sigma -> sigma + omega, g -> e^omega g) with an axion from the supersymmetric dark sector. The scaling symmetry fixes how sigma enters the low-energy action, and supersymmetry makes U0 = |w_X|^2 a perfect square so the potential wants to sit at zero; a relaxation field phi, assumed present in all terms with order-unity derivatives, then shifts by O(1/tau) and leaves the whole potential suppressed as 1/tau^4.

What would settle it

Measure whether the dark energy equation of state w(z) deviates from -1 at the percent level with future surveys: a constant w = -1 with no time dependence would contradict the slowly evolving dilaton. In parallel, a precision gravity search for a scalar-mediated fifth force with range ~10^6 m and matter coupling near gravitational strength would directly test the predicted dilaton mass m_sigma ~ 10^-13 eV.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Section 4.3's relaxation mechanism is the paper's central claim: in a 4D effective theory with approximate scale invariance inherited from supersymmetric extra dimensions, the dilaton tau = e^{sigma/2} appears in the potential as U0/tau^2 + U1/2/tau^3 + U1/tau^4 + ... . Since U0 = |w_X|^2 is a perfect square (an auxiliary field of supersymmetry), a relaxation field phi minimizes it to w_X(phi) ~ O(1/tau), making the first three terms all of order 1/tau^4. The resulting minimum V_min ~ M_p^4 U e^{-2 sigma} ~ (M_EW^2/M_p)^4 is in the right ballpark for dark energy. The paper explicitly labels this as work in progress and lists open conditions: tau's value may come from initial conditions or fr

Load-bearing premise

The relaxation mechanism works only if the relaxation field phi appears in every term of the potential with order-unity derivatives and the dilaton sits at a large value tau ~ 10^28; if either fails, the 1/tau^4 suppression and the dark-energy estimate collapse.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Dark energy would not be a constant vacuum energy but a slowly evolving scalar (dilaton) with equation of state near but not exactly -1, and the value inferred by observers could appear to dip below -1 if dark matter is assumed to evolve as in LambdaCDM.
  • The same tau that explains the electroweak hierarchy also predicts neutrino masses of order M_EW^2/M_p ~ 0.1 eV if neutrinos get mass through dimension-five Higgs operators or KK mixing.
  • A successful mechanism implies the dilaton mass is of order the Hubble scale, so long-range deviations from general relativity are generic and must be screened or otherwise suppressed to pass solar-system tests.
  • The framework ties dark energy to a supersymmetric dark sector whose dark-matter particles have field-dependent masses, so dark matter does not evolve the same way it does in vanilla LambdaCDM.
  • If the potential minimum is stabilized by loop-generated logarithms in U(tau), reproducing tau ~ 60 (tau ~ 10^28) requires only order-50 coefficients.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A decisive discriminator is whether future data confirm time variation in the dark energy equation of state: a constant w = -1 with no running would remove the main observational motivation for this class of models.
  • The framework effectively converts the cosmological constant problem into a set of precision-gravity questions; a dedicated search for a scalar fifth force with range around 10^6 m and near-gravitational coupling could falsify the predicted dilaton mass m_sigma ~ 10^-13 eV.
  • The reliance on a single large tau to explain both electroweak and neutrino hierarchies suggests a testable extension: neutrino masses should track M_EW^2/M_p within the model's parameter space.
  • The perfect-square potential points to supersymmetry as a hidden necessary condition; if a supersymmetric dark sector at the assumed scales is excluded by other searches, the naturalness foundation of the mechanism would be undermined.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 2 minor

Summary. This paper is a set of lecture notes, based on a Les Houches summer school presentation, surveying the interplay between microphysics and cosmology with a focus on the dark-energy problem. It reviews the observational status of dark energy and dark matter, the EFT power-counting framework for gravity coupled to scalars, and the role of technical and 't Hooft naturalness. It then summarizes two 'ways forward': supersymmetric large extra dimensions (SLED) as a UV completion, and a low-energy 4D dilaton-based relaxation mechanism. The central quantitative claim in §4.3 is that the relaxation mechanism predicts a dark-energy scale V_min ~ M_p^4 e^{-2σ} = (m_EW^2/M_p)^4, which the paper calls 'the right ballpark' for the observed dark-energy density.

Significance. The lectures provide a clear, well-organized, and largely accurate pedagogical review of EFT power-counting, naturalness arguments, and their application to cosmology. The paper is valuable as a survey and for its balanced discussion of open problems, including explicit caveats and limitations. The relaxation mechanism is an interesting research direction, and the paper usefully identifies the technical and phenomenological issues that any such mechanism must address. However, the central quantitative claim in §4.3 contains an internal inconsistency in the electroweak scaling, and the paper's own lower-bound estimate in Eq. (4.22) is many orders of magnitude above the observed dark-energy density. As written, the 'right ballpark' claim is not supported and needs correction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3, Eqs. (4.20)-(4.21)] The derivation of the dark-energy estimate is internally inconsistent. In §4.2 the brane kinetic term in Eq. (4.15) is M_p^2 e^{-σ}(∂ψ)^2/2, so the canonically normalized brane scalar is h = M_p e^{-σ/2}ψ; a ψ^2 term in U then gives m_EW ∼ M_p e^{-σ/2} = M_p/τ. Eq. (4.21), however, uses m_EW ∼ M_p e^{-σ/4} = M_p/τ^{1/2}. With the correct scaling from Eq. (4.15), V_min = M_p^4 e^{-2σ} = M_p^4/τ^4 = m_EW^4, not (m_EW^2/M_p)^4. For τ = 10^28, m_EW ∼ 1 eV and V_min ∼ (1 eV)^4, enormously larger than the observed dark-energy density. The paper's own Eq. (4.22) also gives V_min ≳ 10^{-93}M_p^4 for τ ∼ 10^28, far above 10^{-120}M_p^4. Thus the 'right ballpark' claim is not established.
  2. [§4.3, paragraph after Eq. (4.21)] The numerical assignments are mutually inconsistent. The text says σ ∼ 60 gives τ^{1/4} ∼ 10^14 and then uses τ ∼ 10^28 in Eq. (4.22). Since τ = e^{σ/2}, σ = 60 gives τ ≈ 1.1 × 10^13, not 10^28. Moreover, under the §4.2 scaling m_EW = M_p e^{-σ/2}, the value τ = 10^28 gives m_EW ∼ 1 eV, not the electroweak scale. The value of τ needed to reproduce m_EW ∼ 100 GeV depends on which scaling is intended, and this must be stated consistently.
  3. [§4.3, Eq. (4.22)] The lower bound in Eq. (4.22) quantitatively contradicts the 'right ballpark' phrasing. For τ ∼ 10^28 and √F ≳ 10 TeV, the bound is V_min ≳ 10^{-93}M_p^4, which is about 27 orders of magnitude above the observed 10^{-120}M_p^4. The text acknowledges this, but it should be presented as a serious obstacle to the mechanism, not as a minor caveat. The section's framing should be revised so that the quantitative status of the proposal is not overstated.
minor comments (2)
  1. [§3.3.3, Eq. (3.19) vs §4.3] The quantity v_eff = v e^{-σ/4} in Eq. (3.19) is a potential scale, not a canonically normalized scalar mass. The later identification in §4.3 of m_EW with M_p e^{-σ/4} should be justified or corrected; for brane-localized scalars in Eq. (4.15) the mass scales as M_p e^{-σ/2}.
  2. [Throughout] There are several typographical and notation issues, e.g., 'conseqences' (p.17), 'graviation' (p.2), and inconsistent usage of 'Mp' versus 'M_p'. These should be cleaned up in a revision.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the dark-energy estimate is conditional and self-flagged; the m_EW scaling mismatch is a consistency error, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's §4.3 is explicitly framed as a work-in-progress relaxation mechanism, not a completed derivation. The dark-energy estimate (4.20)-(4.21) is derived from the model's potential, and the paper itself flags 'It is a bit of a cheat to compare the vacuum energy to the electroweak scale' (bullet after (4.21)) and notes that (4.22) gives V_min ∼ 10^{-93} M_p^4, many orders too large. This is a correctness limitation, not circularity: τ is chosen to fit the electroweak hierarchy, but expressing V_min in terms of m_EW is a nontrivial relation, not a tautology. The internal inconsistency in m_EW scaling between §4.2 (m_EW ∼ M_p e^{-σ/2}) and §4.3 (m_EW ∼ M_p e^{-σ/4}) is an algebraic error that would invalidate the claimed numerical coincidence, but it does not make the argument circular. Self-citations to [76] and [82] are used as references for the proposed mechanism, not as an unproven uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for derivation. Hence no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 3 invented entities

Listed are the main inputs the paper's central recommendation relies on. Some are standard EFT axioms, while others are domain assumptions specific to the proposed relaxation framework. The free parameters are those chosen by hand to reproduce known scales.

free parameters (3)
  • Present value of dilaton field sigma (or tau = e^{sigma/2}) = tau ~ 10^28 (sigma ~ 60)
    Chosen so that the resulting electroweak scale M_EW ~ M_p e^{-sigma/4} matches the observed value. The dark energy estimate V_min ~ (M_EW^2/M_p)^4 follows from this choice, so it is an input rather than an independent prediction.
  • Coefficients a, b, c of the logarithmic potential U(tau) = Order 50
    Required in section 4.3 to generate a local minimum of V_min at sigma ~ 60. No independent derivation of these values is given; they are chosen to make the mechanism work.
  • High-energy scale M6 (6D Planck mass) and extra-dimensional size L = M6 ~ 100 TeV, 1/L ~ 0.1 eV
    Assumed input scales of the SLED framework; they set e^sigma ~ (M6 L)^2 ~ 10^30 and the KK scale. These are model inputs, not fixed by the paper.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Effective field theory is the correct framework for low-energy gravity, with power-counting estimates as in eq. (2.24).
    Invoked throughout Section 2 as the foundation for the semiclassical approximation and naturalness arguments.
  • domain assumption Technical naturalness is an appropriate criterion for judging fundamental theories.
    The review's main thesis: a small parameter should be protected by a symmetry and stay small under renormalization. This is a methodological assumption, not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Supersymmetry is present in the dark/gravity sector even though it is absent in the Standard Model.
    Central to the SLED and relaxation proposals in Section 4. There is no direct experimental evidence for this.
  • domain assumption The 6D rugby-ball solutions of Nishino-Sezgin supergravity with flat 4D geometry are stable under quantum corrections.
    Needed for the supersymmetric large extra dimensions mechanism reviewed in section 4.1.
  • ad hoc to paper The relaxation field phi appears in all potential terms U_i(phi) with order-unity derivatives.
    Stated in section 4.3 as the key assumption that makes the minimization of U0 produce V_min ~ 1/tau^4.
invented entities (3)
  • Dilaton sigma (and its axionic partner a) independent evidence
    purpose: Provides the relaxation modulus whose large value suppresses the vacuum energy through e^{-2 sigma}, and mediates possible long-range forces.
    The paper gives a falsifiable handle: sigma couples to matter and would produce deviations from GR in precision tests (e.g., equivalence-principle or fifth-force experiments), and its mass is tied to the Hubble scale. No such force has been observed so far.
  • Relaxation field phi
    purpose: Scans the potential to find the zero of the perfect-square term U0, flattening the effective potential for other fields.
    Introduced purely to make the mechanism work. No direct detection channel is specified, though it could play the role of the inflaton.
  • Supersymmetric dark sector (gravitino and other light superpartners of the bulk) independent evidence
    purpose: Cancels quantum corrections to the vacuum energy while avoiding conflict with collider searches for visible superpartners.
    Predicts new light states in a gravitationally coupled sector, e.g., dark radiation or additional neutrino-like species, with potentially observable cosmological effects. Not yet detected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dark Energy and the Symbiosis Between Micro-physics and Cosmology (Naturally)." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/R77L5KU2

@misc{pith2026250900688,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dark Energy and the Symbiosis Between Micro-physics and Cosmology (Naturally)},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/R77L5KU2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.00688}
}
read the original abstract

These lectures aim to highlight the remarkable symbiosis that currently exists between the physics of the very small and the physics of the very large, using the unsolved puzzle of the nature of Dark Energy as a vehicle for so doing. The lectures first summarize what we know observationally about the properties of Dark Energy (and the Dark sector more broadly) and then discuss several approaches to explain them. Along the way this involves determining the types of interactions that would on general grounds be expected to be present in the low-energy limit of fundamental theories involving the many hierarchy of scales we see around us. This includes (but is not limited to) a discussion of technical naturalness (and `t Hooft naturalness) as well as the arguments for their use as a criterion for distinguishing amongst candidate theories. Some recent approaches I find promising are briefly summarized at the end.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.00688 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. log ρ(a) as given in (1.11) vs a with realistic choices for the present-day energy densities (with present-day defined by a(t0) = 1). For a given Hubble parameter, H, it is conventional to define the critical density by ρcrit(a) := 3H2/(8πGN ). Given the current measurement H0 ≃ 70 km/sec/Mpc, the critical density’s numerical value today becomes ρcrit0 ≃ 9 × 10−30 g/cm3 . ρcrit is defined this way because the Friedm… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Left panel: Best-fit values for ΩΛ := Ωvac vs Ωm evaluated in the present day where the diagonal line corresponds to K = 0 (a spatially flat universe). Right panel: Best fits for the present-day values of Ωκ = −K/(aH) 2 vs Ωm. Different colours correspond to fits to different data sets. Both figures taken from [7] then obtained by fitting to observations and given these parameters many other observables can be compu… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The current (mid 2025) state of the art for cosmological parameters obtained by fitting observations to ΛCDM cosmology. The different columns fit to different datasets – see [7] for details. Ultimately our confidence in the existence of things like Dark Matter relies on the redun￾dancy of the evidence in its favour. Redundancy is convincing in two ways. First it provides protection from some of the observations simp… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Left panel: Summary of the constraints on H0 and the sound horizon rd coming from dif￾ferent kinds of observations, illustrating the Hubble tension. Right panel: Summary of the constraints on S8 and the density of nonrelativistic matter Ωm coming from different kinds o…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left panel: constraints on the evolution of the Dark Energy equation of state parameter w as a function of redshift (and so also of universal scale factor). The green swathe denotes the expected shape given a phenomenological parameterization w(a) = w0 + wa a. Right pa…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Conformal symmetry, SM and Gravity

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    A Weyl-invariant SM+mirror-dark-matter+gravity model is developed via algebraic renormalization; its conformal cohomology is claimed trivial, and the required counterterms could — the author concedes not conclusively ...

  2. Anomaly footprints in SM+Gravity

    hep-th 2025-10 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    A mirror right-handed copy of the standard model, sharing only gravity and SU(2), is claimed to be anomaly-free, proposed as dark matter, and wrapped in a Weyl-invariant early-universe solution.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology , Princeton University Press (1993)

    P.J.E. Peebles, Principles of Physical Cosmology , Princeton University Press (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology , Wiley 1973

    S. Weinberg, Gravitation and Cosmology , Wiley 1973

    1973

  3. [3]

    C. W. Misner, J. A. Wheeler and K. S. Thorne, Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Company 1973

    1973

  4. [4]

    The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems

    Alan H. Guth,“The Inflationary Universe: A Possible Solution to the Horizon and Flatness Problems”, Phys. Rev. D23, (1981), 347-356; A.D. Linde, “A New Inflationary Universe Scenario: A Possible Solution of the Horizon, Flatness, Homogeneity, Isotropy and Primordial Monopole Problems”, Phys. Lett. B108, (1982), 389-393; A. Albrecht and P.J. Steinhardt, “C...

    1981

  5. [5]

    V. F. Mukhanov and G. V. Chibisov, JETP Lett. 33, 532 (1981) [Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 33, 549 (1981)]; A. H. Guth and S. Y. Pi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 49, 1110 (1982); A. A. Starobinsky, Phys . Lett. B 117, 175 (1982); S. W. Hawking, Phys. Lett. B 115, 295 (1982); V. N. Lukash, Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 31, 631 (1980); Sov. Phys. JETP 52, 807 (1980) [Zh. Ek...

    1981

  6. [6]

    Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology , Cambridge University Press (2005)

    V. Mukhanov, Physical Foundations of Cosmology , Cambridge University Press (2005). S. Weinberg, Cosmology, Oxford University Press (2008)

    2005

  7. [7]

    The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters,

    T. Louis et al. [ACT], “The Atacama Cosmology Telescope: DR6 Power Spectra, Likelihoods and ΛCDM Parameters,” [arXiv:2503.14452 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 70 –

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H 0,

    Y. S. Murakami, A. G. Riess, B. E. Stahl, W. D. Kenworthy, D. M. A. Pluck, A. Macoretta, D. Brout, D. O. Jones, D. M. Scolnic and A. V. Filippenko, “Leveraging SN Ia spectroscopic similarity to improve the measurement of H 0,” JCAP 11 (2023), 046 [arXiv:2306.00070 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2023

Show all 89 references
  1. [9]

    Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,

    W. L. Freedman, “Measurements of the Hubble Constant: Tensions in Perspective,” Astrophys. J. 919 (2021) no.1, 16 [arXiv:2106.15656 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  2. [10]

    The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,

    E. Di Valentino et al. [CosmoVerse], “The CosmoVerse White Paper: Addressing observational tensions in cosmology with systematics and fundamental physics,” [arXiv:2504.01669 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,

    T. M. C. Abbott et al. [DES], “Dark Energy Survey Year 3 results: Cosmological constraints from galaxy clustering and weak lensing,” Phys. Rev. D 105 (2022) no.2, 023520 [arXiv:2105.13549 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,

    E. Di Valentino, O. Mena, S. Pan, L. Visinelli, W. Yang, A. Melchiorri, D. F. Mota, A. G. Riess and J. Silk, “In the realm of the Hubble tension—a review of solutions,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.15, 153001 [arXiv:2103.01183 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Review of Hubble tension solutions with new SH0ES and SPT-3G data,

    A. R. Khalife, M. B. Zanjani, S. Galli, S. G¨ unther, J. Lesgourgues and K. Benabed, “Review of Hubble tension solutions with new SH0ES and SPT-3G data,” JCAP 04 (2024), 059 [arXiv:2312.09814 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,

    M. Abdul Karim et al. [DESI], “DESI DR2 Results II: Measurements of Baryon Acoustic Oscillations and Cosmological Constraints,” [arXiv:2503.14738 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, “The Cosmological Constant and Dark Energy,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 75 (2003), 559-606 [arXiv:astro-ph/0207347 [astro-ph]]. E. J. Copeland, M. Sami and S. Tsujikawa, “Dynamics of dark energy,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 15 (2006), 1753-1936 [arXiv:hep-th/0603...

    2003 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Phenomenological Lagrangians,

    S. Weinberg, “Phenomenological Lagrangians,” Physica A 96 (1979) no.1-2, 327-340

    1979

  9. [17]

    Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory,” Living Rev. Rel. 7 (2004), 5-56 [arXiv:gr-qc/0311082 [gr-qc]]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    The effective field theory treatment of quantum gravity,

    J. F. Donoghue, “The effective field theory treatment of quantum gravity,” AIP Conf. Proc. 1483 (2012) 73 [arXiv:1209.3511 [gr-qc]]. – 71 –

    2012 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Introduction to Effective Field Theory,

    C. P. Burgess, “Introduction to Effective Field Theory,” Cambridge University Press, 2020, ISBN 978-1-139-04804-0, 978-0-521-19547-8 doi:10.1017/9781139048040

    2020 doi

  12. [20]

    The Cosmological Constant Problem,

    S. Weinberg, “The Cosmological Constant Problem,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 61 (1989), 1-23

    1989

  13. [21]

    The Cosmological Constant Problem: Why it’s hard to get Dark Energy from Micro-physics,

    C. P. Burgess, “The Cosmological Constant Problem: Why it’s hard to get Dark Energy from Micro-physics,” [arXiv:1309.4133 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    The Cosmological constant,

    For other points of view on the cosmological constant problem see: S. M. Carroll, “The Cosmological constant,” Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 1 [astro-ph/0004075]; P. Binetruy, “Cosmological constant versus quintessence,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 39 (2000) 1859 [hep-ph/0005037]; T. Pad...

    2001 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Rigorous constraints, bounds, and relations for scattering amplitudes,

    F. J. Yndurain, “Rigorous constraints, bounds, and relations for scattering amplitudes,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 44 (1972), 645-667 A. Adams, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dubovsky, A. Nicolis and R. Rattazzi, “Causality, analyticity and an IR obstruction to UV completion,” JHEP 10 (2006), 014 ...

    1972 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Quantum Theory of Gravity. 3. Applications of the Covariant Theory,

    B. S. DeWitt, “Quantum Theory of Gravity. 3. Applications of the Covariant Theory,” Phys. Rev. 162 (1967), 1239-1256

    1967

  17. [25]

    Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,

    C. P. Burgess, H. M. Lee and M. Trott, “Power-counting and the Validity of the Classical Approximation During Inflation,” JHEP 09 (2009), 103 [arXiv:0902.4465 [hep-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Power-counting during single-field slow-roll inflation,

    P. Adshead, C. P. Burgess, R. Holman and S. Shandera, “Power-counting during single-field slow-roll inflation,” JCAP 02 (2018), 016 [arXiv:1708.07443 [hep-th]]. – 72 –

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Intro to Effective Field Theories and Inflation,

    C. P. Burgess, “Intro to Effective Field Theories and Inflation,” in the proceedings of the Les Houches school Effective Field Theory in Particle Physics and Cosmology [arXiv:1711.10592 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,

    T. Kobayashi, “Horndeski theory and beyond: a review,” Rept. Prog. Phys. 82 (2019) no.8, 086901 [arXiv:1901.07183 [gr-qc]]. G. W. Horndeski and A. Silvestri, “50 Years of Horndeski Gravity: Past, Present and Future,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 63 (2024) no.2, 38 [arXiv:2402.07538 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Hamiltonian instability,

    R. P. Woodard, “Ostrogradsky’s theorem on Hamiltonian instability,” Scholarpedia 10 (2015) no.8, 32243 [arXiv:1506.02210 [hep-th]]

    2015 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Who You Gonna Call? Runaway Ghosts, Higher Derivatives and Time-Dependence in EFTs,

    C. P. Burgess and M. Williams, “Who You Gonna Call? Runaway Ghosts, Higher Derivatives and Time-Dependence in EFTs,” JHEP 08 (2014), 074 [arXiv:1404.2236 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Higher-derivative operators and effective field theory for general scalar-tensor theories,

    A. R. Solomon and M. Trodden, “Higher-derivative operators and effective field theory for general scalar-tensor theories,” JCAP 02 (2018), 031 [arXiv:1709.09695 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Perils of towers in the swamp: dark dimensions and the robustness of EFTs,

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Perils of towers in the swamp: dark dimensions and the robustness of EFTs,” JHEP 09 (2023), 159 [arXiv:2304.03902 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,

    J. C. Pati and A. Salam, “Lepton Number as the Fourth Color,” Phys. Rev. D 10 (1974), 275-289 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D 11 (1975), 703-703] H. Georgi and S. L. Glashow, “Unity of All Elementary Particle Forces,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 32 (1974), 438-441

    1974

  26. [34]

    ’t Hooft, in Cargese Summer Inst.1979:135 (QCD161:S77:1979) (reprinted in ’t Hooft, G

    G. ’t Hooft, in Cargese Summer Inst.1979:135 (QCD161:S77:1979) (reprinted in ’t Hooft, G. (ed.): Under the spell of the gauge principle352-374, and in Farhi, E. (ed.), Jackiw, R. (ed.): Dynamical gauge symmetry breaking345-367)

    1979

  27. [35]

    Broken Symmetries,

    J. Goldstone, A. Salam and S. Weinberg, “Broken Symmetries,” Phys. Rev. 127 (1962), 965-970

    1962

  28. [36]

    Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,

    S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 1.,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969), 2239-2247 C. G. Callan, Jr., S. R. Coleman, J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Structure of phenomenological Lagrangians. 2.,” Phys. Rev. 177 (1969), 2247-2250

    1969

  29. [37]

    Perturbative Calculations of Symmetry Breaking,

    S. Weinberg, “Perturbative Calculations of Symmetry Breaking,” Phys. Rev. D 7 (1973), 2887-2910

    1973

  30. [38]

    The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry,

    S. Weinberg, “The quantum theory of fields. Vol. 3: Supersymmetry,” Cambridge University Press, 2013, ISBN 978-0-521-67055-5, 978-1-139-63263-8, 978-0-521-67055-5

    2013

  31. [39]

    Supergauge Transformations in Four-Dimensions,

    J. Wess and B. Zumino, “Supergauge Transformations in Four-Dimensions,” Nucl. Phys. B 70 (1974), 39-50 – 73 –

    1974

  32. [40]

    Who’s Afraid of the Supersymmetric Dark? The Standard Model vs Low-Energy Supergravity,

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Who’s Afraid of the Supersymmetric Dark? The Standard Model vs Low-Energy Supergravity,” Fortsch. Phys. 70 (2022) no.7-8, 2200077 [arXiv:2110.13275 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Towards a naturally small cosmological constant from branes in 6-D supergravity,

    Y. Aghababaie, C. P. Burgess, S. L. Parameswaran and F. Quevedo, “Towards a naturally small cosmological constant from branes in 6-D supergravity,” Nucl. Phys. B 680 (2004) 389 [arXiv:hep-th/0304256]. M. Cicoli, C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Anisotropic Modulus Stabilisation:...

    2004 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Supersymmetric Large Extra Dimensions and the Cosmological Constant: An Update,

    For some (relatively old) reviews see C.P. Burgess, “Supersymmetric Large Extra Dimensions and the Cosmological Constant: An Update,” Ann. Phys. 313 (2004) 283-401 [arXiv:hep-th/0402200]; “Towards a natural theory of dark energy: Supersymmetric large extra dimensions,” in the ...

    2004 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,

    C. Wetterich, “Cosmology and the Fate of Dilatation Symmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 302 (1988), 668-696 [arXiv:1711.03844 [hep-th]]. R. D. Peccei, J. Sola and C. Wetterich, “Adjusting the Cosmological Constant Dynamically: Cosmons and a New Force Weaker Than Gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 1...

    1988 arXiv

  36. [44]

    UV Shadows in EFTs: Accidental Symmetries, Robustness and No-Scale Supergravity,

    C. P. Burgess, M. Cicoli, D. Ciupke, S. Krippendorf and F. Quevedo, “UV Shadows in EFTs: Accidental Symmetries, Robustness and No-Scale Supergravity,” Fortsch. Phys. 68 (2020) no.10, 2000076 [arXiv:2006.06694 [hep-th]]

    2020 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world,

    B. J. Carr and M. J. Rees, “The anthropic principle and the structure of the physical world,” Nature 278 (1979) 605; S. Weinberg, “Anthropic Bound on the Cosmological Constant,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 2607; R. Bousso and J. Polchinski, “Quantization of four form fluxes and...

    1979 arXiv

  38. [46]

    The String landscape and the swampland,

    C. Vafa, “The String landscape and the swampland,” [arXiv:hep-th/0509212 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    Constraints on String Vacua with Space-Time Supersymmetry,

    T. Banks and L. J. Dixon, “Constraints on String Vacua with Space-Time Supersymmetry,” Nucl. Phys. B 307 (1988), 93-108

    1988

  40. [48]

    Continuous Global Symmetries and Hyperweak Interactions in String Compactifications,

    C. P. Burgess, J. P. Conlon, L. Y. Hung, C. H. Kom, A. Maharana and F. Quevedo, “Continuous Global Symmetries and Hyperweak Interactions in String Compactifications,” JHEP 07 (2008), 073 [arXiv:0805.4037 [hep-th]]

    2008 arXiv

  41. [49]

    De Sitter Space and the Swampland,

    G. Obied, H. Ooguri, L. Spodyneiko and C. Vafa, “De Sitter Space and the Swampland,” [arXiv:1806.08362 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    The dark dimension and the Swampland,

    M. Montero, C. Vafa and I. Valenzuela, “The dark dimension and the Swampland,” JHEP 02 (2023), 022 [arXiv:2205.12293 [hep-th]]. L. A. Anchordoqui, I. Antoniadis and D. Lust, “Two Micron-Size Dark Dimensions,” Fortsch. Phys. 73 (2025) no.8, e70015 [arXiv:2501.11690 [hep-th]]

    2023 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Fat gravitons, the cosmological constant and submillimeter tests,

    R. Sundrum, “Fat gravitons, the cosmological constant and submillimeter tests,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004) 044014 [hep-th/0306106]

    2004 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity,

    J.G. Williams, S.G. Turyshev and D.H. Boggs, “Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004) 261101 [arXiv:gr-qc/0411113]

    2004 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,

    C. M. Will, “The confrontation between general relativity and experiment,” Living Rev. Rel. 4 (2001) 4 [arXiv:gr-qc/0103036]; Living Rev. Rel. 9 (2005) 3 [arXiv:gr-qc/0510072]; D. J. Kapner, T. S. Cook, E. G. Adelberger, J. H. Gundlach, B. R. Heckel, C. D. Hoyle and H. E. Swan...

    2001 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Gravitational Field of Vacuum Domain Walls and Strings,

    A. Vilenkin, “Gravitational Field of Vacuum Domain Walls and Strings,” Phys. Rev. D 23 (1981) 852; R. Gregory, “Gravitational Stability Of Local Strings,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 59 (1987) 740; A. G. Cohen and D. B. Kaplan, “The Exact Metric About Global Cosmic Strings,” Phys. Lett. ...

    1981 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A Critical cosmological constant from millimeter extra dimensions

    J. W. Chen, M. A. Luty and E. Ponton, “A Critical cosmological constant from millimeter extra dimensions” JHEP 0009 (2000) 012 [arXiv:hep-th/0003067]; S. M. Carroll and M. M. Guica, “Sidestepping the cosmological constant with football-shaped extra dimensions,” [arXiv:hep-th/0...

    2000 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Warped brane worlds in six-dimensional supergravity,

    Y. Aghababaie, C. P. Burgess, J. M. Cline, H. Firouzjahi, S. L. Parameswaran, F. Quevedo, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, “Warped brane worlds in six-dimensional supergravity,” JHEP 0309 (2003) 037 [hep-th/0308064]

    2003 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Is the Neutrino a Goldstone Particle?,

    D. V. Volkov and V. P. Akulov, “Is the Neutrino a Goldstone Particle?,” Phys. Lett. B 46 (1973) 109; “Goldstone fields with spin 1/2,” Theor. Math. Phys. 18 (1974) 28 [Teor. Mat. Fiz. 18 (1974) 39]; B. Zumino, “Nonlinear Realization of Supersymmetry in de Sitter Space,” Nucl. ...

    1973

  50. [59]

    The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, “The hierarchy problem and new dimensions at a millimeter,” Phys. Lett. B 429 (1998) 263 [arXiv:hep-ph/9803315]; I. Antoniadis, N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos and G. R. Dvali, “New dimensions at a millimeter to a Fermi and supers...

    1998 arXiv

  51. [60]

    Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,

    G. F. Giudice, R. Rattazzi, J. D. Wells, “Quantum gravity and extra dimensions at high-energy colliders,” Nucl. Phys. B544 (1999) 3 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811291]; T. Han, J. D. Lykken, R. -J. Zhang, “On Kaluza-Klein states from large extra dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D59 (1999) 105006 [a...

    1999 arXiv

  52. [61]

    Technically Natural Cosmological Constant From Supersymmetric 6D Brane Backreaction,

    C. P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, “Technically Natural Cosmological Constant From Supersymmetric 6D Brane Backreaction,” arXiv:1108.0345 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  53. [62]

    MSLED: A Minimal supersymmetric large extra dimensions scenario,

    C. P. Burgess, J. Matias and F. Quevedo, “MSLED: A Minimal supersymmetric large extra dimensions scenario,” Nucl. Phys. B 706 (2005) 71 [arXiv:hep-ph/0404135]

    2005 arXiv

  54. [63]

    Phenomenological constraints on extra dimensional scalars,

    G. Azuelos, P. H. Beauchemin, C. P. Burgess, “Phenomenological constraints on extra dimensional scalars,” J. Phys. G G31 (2005) 1-20 [hep-ph/0401125]; P. H. Beauchemin, G. Azuelos, C. P. Burgess, “Dimensionless coupling of bulk scalars at the LHC,” J. Phys. G G30 (2004) N17 [h...

    2005 arXiv

  55. [64]

    The Complete N=2, D = 6 Supergravity With Matter And Yang-Mills Couplings,

    H. Nishino and E. Sezgin, Phys. Lett. 144B (1984) 187; “The Complete N=2, D = 6 Supergravity With Matter And Yang-Mills Couplings,” Nucl. Phys. B278 (1986) 353; S. Randjbar-Daemi, A. Salam, E. Sezgin and J. Strathdee, “An Anomaly Free Model in Six-Dimensions” Phys. Lett. B151 ...

    1984

  56. [65]

    Chiral Compactification On Minkowski X S**2 Of N=2 Einstein-Maxwell Supergravity In Six-Dimensions,

    A. Salam and E. Sezgin, “Chiral Compactification On Minkowski X S**2 Of N=2 Einstein-Maxwell Supergravity In Six-Dimensions,” Phys. Lett. B 147 (1984) 47

    1984

  57. [66]

    Bulk Axions, Brane Back-reaction and Fluxes,

    C. P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, “Bulk Axions, Brane Back-reaction and Fluxes,” JHEP 02 (2011), 094 [arXiv:1012.2638 [hep-th]]. C. P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, “Large Dimensions and Small Curvatures from Supersymmetric Brane Back-reaction,” JHEP 04 (2011), 078 [arXiv:1101.015...

    2011 arXiv

  58. [67]

    Selftuning and its footprints,

    H. -P. Nilles, A. Papazoglou and G. Tasinato, “Selftuning and its footprints,” Nucl. Phys. B 677 (2004) 405 [hep-th/0309042]; J. Garriga and M. Porrati, “Football shaped extra dimensions and the absence of self-tuning,” JHEP 0408 (2004) 028 [hep-th/0406158]; J. Vinet and J. M....

    2004 arXiv

  59. [68]

    3-branes and uniqueness of the Salam-Sezgin vacuum,

    G. W. Gibbons, R. Guven and C. N. Pope, “3-branes and uniqueness of the Salam-Sezgin vacuum,” Phys. Lett. B 595 (2004) 498 [hep-th/0307238]; C. P. Burgess, F. Quevedo, G. Tasinato and I. Zavala, “General axisymmetric solutions and self-tuning in 6D chiral gauged supergravity,”...

    2004 arXiv

  60. [69]

    On Brane Back-Reaction and de Sitter Solutions in Higher-Dimensional Supergravity,

    C. P. Burgess, A. Maharana, L. van Nierop, A. A. Nizami and F. Quevedo, “On Brane Back-Reaction and de Sitter Solutions in Higher-Dimensional Supergravity,” JHEP 1204 (2012) 018 [arXiv:1109.0532 [hep-th]]; see also R. Koster and M. Postma, “A no-go for no-go theorems prohibiti...

    2012 arXiv

  61. [70]

    Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,

    J. M. Maldacena and C. Nunez, “Supergravity description of field theories on curved manifolds and a no go theorem,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 16 (2001) 822 [hep-th/0007018]; D. H. Wesley, “New no-go theorems for cosmic acceleration with extra dimensions,” arXiv:0802.2106 [hep-th]; ...

    2001 arXiv

  62. [71]

    Bulk singularities and the effective cosmological constant for higher co-dimension branes,

    A. J. Tolley, C. P. Burgess, D. Hoover and Y. Aghababaie, “Bulk singularities and the effective cosmological constant for higher co-dimension branes,” JHEP 0603 (2006) 091 [arXiv:hep-th/0512218]; A. J. Tolley, C. P. Burgess, C. de Rham and D. Hoover, “Scaling solutions to 6D g...

    2006 arXiv

  63. [72]

    Effective Field Theories and Matching for Codimension-2 Branes,

    C. P. Burgess, D. Hoover, C. de Rham and G. Tasinato, “Effective Field Theories and Matching for Codimension-2 Branes,” JHEP 0903 (2009) 124 [arXiv:0812.3820 [hep-th]]; A. Bayntun, C.P. Burgess and L. van Nierop, “Codimension-2 Brane-Bulk Matching: Examples from Six and Ten Di...

    2009 arXiv

  64. [73]

    A small cosmological constant from a large extra dimension,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, S. Dimopoulos, N. Kaloper and R. Sundrum, “A small cosmological constant from a large extra dimension,” Phys. Lett. B 480 (2000) 193 [arXiv:hep-th/0001197]; S. Kachru, M. B. Schulz and E. Silverstein, “Self-tuning flat domain walls in 5d gravity and string the...

    2000 arXiv

  65. [74]

    A Comment on selftuning and vanishing cosmological constant in the brane world,

    S. Forste, Z. Lalak, S. Lavignac and H. P. Nilles, “A Comment on selftuning and vanishing cosmological constant in the brane world,” Phys. Lett. B 481 (2000) 360 [hep-th/0002164]; – 78 – C. Csaki, J. Erlich, C. Grojean and T. J. Hollowood, “General properties of the selftuning...

    2000 arXiv

  66. [75]

    UV sensitivity in supersymmetric large extra dimensions: The Ricci-flat case,

    C. P. Burgess and D. Hoover, “UV sensitivity in supersymmetric large extra dimensions: The Ricci-flat case,” Nucl. Phys. B 772 (2007) 175 [hep-th/0504004]; D. Hoover and C. P. Burgess, “Ultraviolet sensitivity in higher dimensions,” JHEP 0601 (2006) 058 [hep-th/0507293]; C. P....

    2007 arXiv

  67. [76]

    Yoga Dark Energy: natural relaxation and other dark implications of a supersymmetric gravity sector,

    C. P. Burgess, D. Dineen and F. Quevedo, “Yoga Dark Energy: natural relaxation and other dark implications of a supersymmetric gravity sector,” JCAP 03 (2022) no.03, 064 [arXiv:2111.07286 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  68. [77]

    Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,

    S. Weinberg, “Baryon and Lepton Nonconserving Processes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 43 (1979), 1566-1570

    1979

  69. [78]

    Neutrino oscillations without neutrino masses or heavy mass scales: A Higher dimensional seesaw mechanism,

    K. R. Dienes, E. Dudas and T. Gherghetta, “Neutrino oscillations without neutrino masses or heavy mass scales: A Higher dimensional seesaw mechanism,” Nucl. Phys. B 557 (1999), 25 [arXiv:hep-ph/9811428 [hep-ph]]

    1999 arXiv

  70. [79]

    MSLED, neutrino oscillations and the cosmological constant,

    J. Matias and C. P. Burgess, “MSLED, neutrino oscillations and the cosmological constant,” JHEP 0509 (2005) 052 [arXiv:hep-ph/0508156]

    2005 arXiv

  71. [80]

    From Linear SUSY to Constrained Superfields,

    Z. Komargodski and N. Seiberg, “From Linear SUSY to Constrained Superfields,” JHEP 09 (2009), 066 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2009/09/066 [arXiv:0907.2441 [hep-th]]. R. Kallosh, F. Quevedo and A. M. Uranga, JHEP 12 (2015), 039 doi:10.1007/JHEP12(2015)039 [arXiv:1507.07556 [hep-th]]....

    2009 arXiv

  72. [81]

    Light axiodilatons: matter couplings, weak-scale completions and long-distance tests of gravity,

    P. Brax, C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Light axiodilatons: matter couplings, weak-scale completions and long-distance tests of gravity,” JCAP 08 (2023), 011 [arXiv:2212.14870 [hep-ph]]

    2023 arXiv

  73. [82]

    RG-induced modulus stabilization: perturbative de Sitter vacua and improved D3-D3 inflation,

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “RG-induced modulus stabilization: perturbative de Sitter vacua and improved D3-D3 inflation,” JHEP 06 (2022), 167 [arXiv:2202.05344 [hep-th]]

    2022 arXiv

  74. [83]

    Back to the origins of brane–antibrane inflation,

    M. Cicoli, C. Hughes, A. R. Kamal, F. Marino, F. Quevedo, M. Ramos-Hamud and G. Villa, “Back to the origins of brane–antibrane inflation,” Eur. Phys. J. C 85 (2025) no.3, 315 [arXiv:2410.00097 [hep-th]]

    2025 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space,

    J. Khoury and A. Weltman, “Chameleon fields: Awaiting surprises for tests of gravity in space,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93 (2004), 171104 [arXiv:astro-ph/0309300 [astro-ph]]; “Chameleon cosmology,” Phys. Rev. D 69 (2004), 044026 [arXiv:astro-ph/0309411 [astro-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Axion homeopathy: screening dilaton interactions,

    C. P. Burgess and F. Quevedo, “Axion homeopathy: screening dilaton interactions,” JCAP 04 (2022) no.04, 007 [arXiv:2110.10352 [hep-th]]. O. Lacombe and S. Mukohyama, “Multi-scalar theories of gravity with direct matter couplings and their parametrized post-Newtonian parameters...

    2022 arXiv

  77. [86]

    Natural quintessence and large extra dimensions,

    A. Albrecht, C. P. Burgess, F. Ravndal and C. Skordis, “Natural quintessence and large extra dimensions,” Phys. Rev. D 65 (2002), 123507 [arXiv:astro-ph/0107573 [astro-ph]]

    2002 arXiv

  78. [87]

    Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons,

    J. A. Frieman, C. T. Hill, A. Stebbins and I. Waga, “Cosmology with ultralight pseudo Nambu-Goldstone bosons,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 75 (1995) 2077 [astro-ph/9505060]; Y. Nomura, T. Watari and T. Yanagida, “Quintessence axion potential induced by electroweak instanton effects,” Phy...

    1995 arXiv

  79. [88]

    CMB implications of multi-field axio-dilaton cosmology,

    A. Smith, M. Mylova, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess and A. C. Davis, “CMB implications of multi-field axio-dilaton cosmology,” JCAP 12 (2024), 058 [arXiv:2408.10820 [hep-th]]. A. Smith, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess and A. C. Davis, “Screened Axio-dilaton Co...

    2024 arXiv

  80. [89]

    A Minimal Axio-dilaton Dark Sector,

    A. Smith, M. Mylova, P. Brax, C. van de Bruck, C. P. Burgess and A. C. Davis, “A Minimal Axio-dilaton Dark Sector,” [arXiv:2410.11099 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  81. [90]

    Cosmology with varying fundamental constants from hyperlight, coupled scalars,

    M. Baryakhtar, O. Simon and Z. J. Weiner, “Cosmology with varying fundamental constants from hyperlight, coupled scalars,” Phys. Rev. D 110 (2024) no.8, 083505 [arXiv:2405.10358 [astro-ph.CO]]. – 81 –

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.